Author
Topic: Monsanto - What do you think? (Read 7345 times)

The ol' straw man keeps coming up :) I was going to point that out about the witch burning comment also.

My point is not that it is good because it's old. There was a flavor of "new-fangled, unreliable, unsafe organic" going on in the threads, so I was merely pointing out that it is not new at all. The marketing of it is new.

As for my comment about kingbee's exposure to ag, I apologize for that. Perhaps your immersion in conventional agriculture has left you not as well informed about organic agriculture.

My conventional farming husband used to have a lot of vehement attacks on organic also, until he actually learned about it and spent time with some of the farmers. He still has reservations about its feasability on a grand scale (I don't), but he respects it now and insists we eat as much organic food as possible (as if he had to twist my arm).

Getting back on topic, even as a conventional farmer he hates GMO and even more despises Monsanto for all the reasons I listed earlier.

Logged

The pedigree of honey Does not concern the bee; A clover, any time, to him Is aristocracy. ---Emily Dickinson

... My conventional farming husband used to... vehement attack... organic [agriculture] also... He still has reservations about its feasability on a grand scale (I don't)...

I respect anyone who grows their own organic food and I am awed by their commitment. As for the large scale feasibility of what many Americans with $100 manicures call organic agriculture, which is a destination they wish to impose on society at any cost more than it is a personal commitment that requires hard work, please explain the benefits of organic food to the child in the third graphic in this link who is patiently waiting to learn first hand about the benifits of "organic" eating.http://abodwadkar16.blogspot.com/2010/10/global-issues-avni-3rd-world-farmer.html

"I respect anyone who grows their own organic food and I am awed by their commitment."

Really now? A couple posts ago, and eating organic, raw was killing people according to you.

"As for the large scale feasibility of what many Americans with $100 manicures call organic agriculture, which is a destination they wish to impose on society at any cost more than it is a personal commitment that requires hard work, please explain the benefits of organic food to the child in the third graphic in this link who is patiently waiting to learn first hand about the benifits of "organic" eating."

Yawwn!!!!!!

What do you have against hundred dollar manicures now??? Huh???? Who is saying they want to impose their eating habits on anyone else??? Well???

If you only have strawmen for arguments, and don't have any answers, I see kingbee, you just change the subject and tug at the heart strings????

you could pass for a government trained and employed left wing comedian.

In the reading I've done, starvation seems to be more of a distribution/unstable governments problem than lack of food. We have as many obese people in the world as we do starving. In fact, our large-scale nonorganic (or even large-scale organic) ag is devastating the lands and economies of children all over the world. "Real" organic is small, local, sustainable.

I don't see anyone "imposing" organic. You simply buy it, or you don't. Nobody's being forced with organic. We ARE, however, being offered almost nothing but GMO and nonorganic in school lunches, grocery stores and restaurants. I think it's hilarious to think that organic is being force fed to anyone. While it's the fastest growing sector in ag, it is still only a small portion of the overall ag pie.

Logged

The pedigree of honey Does not concern the bee; A clover, any time, to him Is aristocracy. ---Emily Dickinson

luvin honey-you are on the money. It is 'primarily' an issue of distribution, usually by corrupt Governments (is there any other?), whenever it comes to starvation or even famine. Its been used as means of control for centuries and remains perhaps the most misunderstood element of the so-called IRISH POTATO FAMINE (or any famine if properly examined).

That sad bit of history was all about who was going to 'own' and control the LAND, as it always is. The Irish People lost.

They were in fact starved in their own land where bounty was plentiful (for the LANDLORDS). A little known fact about the Irish famine is that Ireland actually remained an exporter of produce (FOOD) throughout this period.

"the more things change the more they stay the same"

t

Logged

"Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who say they've found it."

I didn't know that about Ireland, TBeek. It certainly is believable! And mirrored today when huge ag companies take over land in foreign countries, employ the natives for a pittance, and the natives lose their land, income and identity.

Logged

The pedigree of honey Does not concern the bee; A clover, any time, to him Is aristocracy. ---Emily Dickinson

... I don't see anyone "imposing" organic. You simply buy it, or you don't...

If the above is the reality of those who are pushing the hardest for organic agriculture (and I am not saying that you are one of them) then how come one of the first things they mention is forcing all non organic or GMO foods to self identify with the moral equivalency of a big bright yellow star of David (like the Nazis did to the Jews) so the organic Brown Shirts can easily identify non organic food and the customers of non organic food, to make it easier for organic Storm Troopers to launch a campaign of intimidation or to socialy shun these customers?

It is my firm belief that when the facts proves insufficient to win the day, the side that is most in danger of loosing starts tossing around the old "straw man" line of unreasoning in an effort to silence the other side or to at least create enough smoke so that they can withdraw from the field of battle in some semblances of good order and with their loosing arguments intact. Stick with the facts, examine your facts, examine my facts, then only use the facts that pass inspection to determine the truth. Any takers?

Besides, my railing about $100 manicures is only a drop in the bucket when compaired to the flood of crocodile tears that's been poured out by those who denounce this greedy company here, or that greedy farmer there when speaking about GMOs. My advice is, "Physician, Heal Thyself!!" In other words, I will forgo denouncing $100 manicures if the organic crusaders will stop denouncing the people they denounce. How about it?

Why can't folks denounce companies and industries that they are odds with? Folks did a fine job detailing some of the issues they have.

Who cares if you denounce 100 dollar manicures? You really think that is how it works? You come to a bee forum and bring up manicures, and use that as an exchange to ask for silence from a group of folks who oppose what you seemingly have an issue with.

I know Monsanto and a few other biotech companies have been known to hang out on certain forums, and pay employees to scan the blogs, and to offer confusing and opposing views from anybody that says anything denigrating to their positions.

I didn't think I would happen on a bee forum, but I guess it could.

Read your second paragraph. Then take your own advice. Supporting your own position is far different than attacking someone elses position.

I agree luvin honey, I see no one "Imposing" organic. But I do see opposition (and trying to stop) the discussion at hand. Makes you wonder.

(to kingbee, as Bjorn's and my posts crossed in cyberspace :))I just don't see it that way at all--the identifying GMO.

GMO is new. I am not convinced it is safe. I am not convinced it is dangerous. I simply don't know. I would prefer to not consume it until there is a LONG track record for it.

As for the OTHER issues with GMO--contamination of other species, etc., I'm firmly against it.

Frankly, I don't care what you say about $100 manicures. I seriously cannot make any sense of that comment at all. I will continue to denounce any company that tries to patent the seed supply and forces so many other seed producers out of business that they have a monopoly on the main crops grown in America. I see that as exceedingly dangerous. I haven't seen corporations looking out for the good of the people for a long time (ever?).

Kingbee--I still think comparing labeling GMO foods to the Holocaust is ridiculous. Now if I were suggesting putting stars on the PEOPLE who consume/grow GMO foods, I would agree with you. I'm not suggesting that. I personally consider it a right of the consumer to know where their products come from, how they're grown, etc.

When I sell soap, I label it. I know all about my ingredients and freely offer that information to my customers. It is clearly their choice to choose to buy or not. Some won't buy soap made with lard. That's their choice, and I owe them that information so they can make an informed decision. I want to be able to make informed decisions about the food I feed my family. For now, the only way to be free of GMO is to grow/buy organic.

I don't see anyone trying to silence you, KB. In fact, people have responded to your posts over and over. You're simply being asked to be reasonable and pertinent in your arguments. Comparing labeling GMO food with labeling Jews in the Holocaust is NOT (in my opinion) a reasonable argument.

Logged

The pedigree of honey Does not concern the bee; A clover, any time, to him Is aristocracy. ---Emily Dickinson

In the reading I've done, starvation seems to be more of a distribution/unstable governments problem than lack of food...

Congratulations Ms Honey. I think that you have found a fact that both of us can in theory agree on.But if the hunger problem is a problem of distribution and it is not a problem of supply or production, why is the most vocal segment of the organic food lobby advocating for a small area of distribution and why are they calling for more local food consumption, especially organic food when the solution would seem to require a more wide spread distribution of all food? At face value these two positions seem incompatible, help me out here.

Other countries export food when their own people go hungry. I call that a distribution problem in which local food should be fed to local people.

The only comment I have to make about starvation and GMO is that Monsanto claims GMO technology will help feed the hungry of the world (please research their practices in poor nations) when we don't have a shortage of food. We have corrupt/war-torn countries and distribution problems.

Logged

The pedigree of honey Does not concern the bee; A clover, any time, to him Is aristocracy. ---Emily Dickinson

>>Other countries export food when their own people go hungry. I call that a distribution problem in which local food should be fed to local people.

Be careful! You could be branded a socialist for statements like that. :-D

:soapbox:Ireland - Potato famine The English land lords evicted most of their Irish share-croppers. Wheat was more profitable, partially because it was less labor intensive, and partially because the English Parliament had enacted protectionist policies regarding grain crops. The Potato Blight effected ALL of Europe. Why did the Irish starve? England, to protect the price of wheat (Rich land Owners), would not allow the importation of grains! The Irish starved to keep the rich, rich!

I know next to noting about the Irish potato famine, but I would wonder if a tremendous lack of ag diversity (not only in potato varieties, but in types of food grown overall) was part of the problem. And of course in times of drough, blight or other terrible ag problems a country should import to feed its people, in my opinion.

Logged

The pedigree of honey Does not concern the bee; A clover, any time, to him Is aristocracy. ---Emily Dickinson

No, it had nothing to do w/ lack of diversity. Remember, these were farmers 'before' the advent of monoculture, and as such they grew a wide variety of crops simply by habit, but when the potato crop failed 'IT" was blamed for the hoards of starving people instead of the real culprits.

Fact is, in some cases up to 90% of what was produced (and not hidden well enough) was taken to satisfy the (taxes?)greed of the LANDLORDS and nothing more. At the time the Irish were considered expendable, even less than human by many.

Henry George dedicates an entire chapter to the causes of the Irish Famine in "Progress and Poverty" (available FREE on line) and is well worth the read for anyone interested in this period in history, if only to see how little things have changed since then.

t

Logged

"Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who say they've found it."

... Artificial fertilizers are like eating starch, sugar, and fat to get your nutrition...

We need to be carefully about our analogies before we submit our posts.If as you claim farming with the help of artificial fertilizers is like us eating a diet of starch, sugar, and fat, then what is eating PETA's vegetarian diet of whole grains, fresh fruits, and nuts? It sure ain't Chopped liver!!!

It would seem to me as well as to anyone with a lick of common sense, that the above health food diet of whole grains, fresh fruit, and nuts, is full of starch, sugar, and fat to the exclusion of most other nutrients. Some nuts are 40% fat. Fruits may contain twice that much sugar by weight once they are preserved by Sun drying. Not to be out done, whole grains contain a whole lot of fat as well as starch that our bodies must turn into sugar.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raisin

... Why can't folks denounce companies and industries that they are odds with?...

I am only trying to make my view points known or clear as you can see by reading my posts. You are free to do the same. I have never tried to prevent you or anyone else from expressing your ideas. I do however rebut ideas that I feel are flawed by resorting to the facts. I apologize if that discomforts you.

It is the duty of each of us to point out faulty reasoning, yourself included. Not one of us has a lock on the truth, myself included.

So attack my reasoning by using the facts. I shall perform the same service for you. That is as far as I intend or as far as I need to go. If you need to go farther than the facts to defend your beliefs, then I suggest that you re-examine your beliefs, because they may not be worth defending.

If however, anyone feels the need to attack me as a Monsanto plant, then I feel that the anti GMO arguments are already a few bricks short of a hod before we start the discussion. http://www.heyokamagazine.com/hod%20carrier.jpgAre we in agreement?

... As for the OTHER issues with GMO--contamination of other species, etc., I'm firmly against it....

No one is for contaminating anything, quite the opposite. But are there any FACTS that state that GMOs contaminate anything? If there are I fail to find them. There is this one fact that no one who opposes GMOs seems willing to admit. Before Bt corn or cotton came on the scene it was quite common for farmers to spray their crops multiple times with dangerous chemical pesticides in order to control insect pest. In one of your posts you mentioned a neighbor farmer who you came close to claiming died from brain cancer as a result of exposure to chemical pesticides. The flip side of that coin is that this man may still be living if GMOs had arrived sooner. I don't think that you are happy that he died, but would you trade his life for fewer GMO crops in your neck of the woods? I am betting that his family would not.

... I will continue to denounce any company that tries to patent the seed supply and forces so many other seed producers out of business...

The facts are that Monsanto has never sold a single seed to anyone anywhere. They do license their gene splicing technology to other seed companies both local, national, and international. The seed companies that you have been told that Monsanto is forcing out of business are doing quite well because they now have a product, Monsanto’s GMO seed, that is very much in demand. Besides Monsanto's paten for Round Up Ready soybeans expires in 2014. After that Round Up Ready beans will be in the public domain and you, your husband, even Old McDonald will be free to save and replant Round Up Ready soybeans. They will be free. What is wrong with free?

There are perhaps seed companies that failed to or that declined to hop aboard Monsanto's gravy train, and these seed companies may have been left behind in the dust of those that are licensing Monsanto's technology These first companies may drive the laggard companies out of business but Monsanto won't. If the backward companies try and steal Monsanto's paten then that is a GMO of a different color. But a seed company would be crazy to do that because they would have to keep their mouth shut about it and not advertise the fact to the world that their price for Monsanto's GMO technology was a steal. :-D

... Kingbee--I still think comparing labeling GMO foods to the Holocaust is ridiculous. Now if I were suggesting putting stars on the PEOPLE who consume/grow GMO foods, I would agree with you....

Refer to the first part of my post. You are free to eat all the organic food you desire or can hold. All organic food is GMO free food. Like there is no GMOs in organic food, nada, non, zip, nien. What more is there to wish for other than slapping identifying symbols or labels on nor organic food like the Nazis did to Jews????